CR.  aia^i  Q5(D) 
4SS0 


Duke  University  Libraries 
Benjamin  Huger 
Conf  Pam  #550 


IN    EQUITY. 

CHARLESTON  DISTRICT. 


BENJAMIN     HUGER     READ. 

Executor  J.  Harlestox  Kkap,  et  al, 

ads.  ^ 

J.  HAKLESTON  READ, 

ADMINISTRATOR. 


• 


JAMES  SIMOxVS,  \ 

Complainant's  Solicitor. 

DeSAUSSURE  &  SOX,  and 
MExMMINGER,  JBflVEY  &  WILKINSON, 

Solicitors  for  B.  II.  Read,  Executor. 

NELSON  MITCHELL, 

Solicitor  for  Capt.  Maffit  and  family. 


CHARLESTON  : 

STi:  AM- I'O  WKU    PKKS.SES    OF    EVANS    Sc    C  O  G  S  W  K  I,  I. 
No.  ?,  Broad  .-iii'l  103  East  D.iy  Street. 

ISGl. 


*» 


p^  ■ 

^550 


s 


"?♦ 


^" 


SOUTH  CAROLINA-CHARLESTON  DISTRICT. 


Benjamin  H.  Rkad, 
Ex'or  J.  IIarleston  Read,  eta].,  \  t    r-    •. 
ads.  'rL^hqmt^. 

J.  IIarleston  Read,   Adm'r.    J 

GROUNDS  OF  APPEAL. 
By  Benjamin  H.  Read  Executor  J.  IIarleston  Read. 

1.  That  his  Honor  the  presiding  Chanoc]h)r  erred  in 
decreeing  that  the  decedent,  J.  IIarleston  Read,  became 
trustee,  under  the  deed  of  marriage  settlement,  for  himself 
and  his  children. 

2.  That  his  Ilonor  the  presiding  Chancellor  erred  in 
decreeing  an  account  against  the  estate  of  the  decedent  J. 
IIarleston  Read,  when,  by  the  decree,  it  is  declared  that  the 
said  J.  Harleston  Read,  and  his  co-heirs,  the  children  of  the 
marriage,  became  jointly  "bound  to  execute  the  trusts 
which  the  property  had  been  subjected  to  by  the  <leed  of 
July  18th,  1811."  ^ 

3.  That  his  Ilonor  the  presiding  Chancellor  erred  in 
decreeing  tliat  the  long  and  exclusive  possession  by  the 
decedent,  J.  IIarleston  Read,  was  not  an  ouster,  when  by  the 
decree  it  is  declared  tliat  the  decedent  and  his  co-heirs  were 
jointly  bound  to  execute  the  trust. 

4.  That  the  co-heirs,  being  jointly  interested  in  the  usu- 
fruct with  the  decedent,  were  ousted  by  his  occupancy  and 
enjoyment,  and  his  Honor  the  presiding  Chancellbr  errell 
ia  not  so  decreein(j. 


5.  Thii;  his  Honor  tlie  |)residiiig  Chancelror  erred  in 
decreeing  that  the  chiini  of  the  deceased,  James  "Withers 
Kead,  was  not  barred  bvthe  anak^gy  of  the  Statute  of  Limi- 
tations, and  his  administrator  not  debarred  from  making 
claim  for  an  account  by  reason  of  the  staleuess  of  the 
same. 

6.  That  his  Honor  the  presiding  ChanceHor  erred  in 
deereeina;  that  the  deceased  cliiUh'en  of  the  marria<>:e  are 
entitled  to  an  account,  after  so  great  lapse  of  time  since 
their  respective  deaths  in  minority,  and  when  the  law  pre- 
sumes a  settlement  of  their  estates  by  lapse  of  time. 

7.  That  his  Honor  the  presiding  Chancellor  erred  in 
decreeing  that  the  confession  of  judgment  by  the  com- 
plainants, decedent  J.  Withers  Read,  to  the  defendants,  de- 
cedent J.  Harleston  Read,  was  not  a  full  presumptive  evi- 
dence of  a  settlement  of  all  accounts  between  them  up  to 
such  time. 

8.  That  his  Honor  the  presiding  Chancellor  erred  in 
decreeing  that  the  legacy,  under  the  will  of  the  decedent  J. 
Harleston  Read,  to  his  grandchildren,  John  Laurens  Read 
and  Mary  Withers  Read,  presented  neither  a  case  of  elec- 

t  tion  nor  one  of  satisfaction.  • 

9.  That  his  Honor  the  presiding  Chancellor  erred  in  not 
decreeing  that  the  complainants,  decedent  J.  Withers  Read, 
should,  under  all  the  circumstances  of  this  case,  including 
therein  his  maintenance  until  majority  and  the  advances 
subsequently  made  to  and  for  him  by  the  defendants,  dece- 
dent J.  Harleston  Read,  and  evinced  by  J.  Withers  Read's 
confession  of  judgment,  be  presumed  to  have  no  claim  for 
any  account  anterior  to  the  date  of  such  confession  of 
judgment. 

DeSAUSSURE  &  SOI^, 

SoVrs  Benjamin  H.  Read. 


p6Rmalipe« 

pH8.5 


